FUDGEY NUMBERS

Every so often I go to the ExMormon subreddit. I try not to go too often for mental health reasons...

Today I saw a repost which caught my eye:

Normally such a post would yield a "huh, makes sense" response from me and I would be on my merry way to more positive forums on Reddit, like r/scotch and r/bourbon. But today... today I'm feeling a little salty. Maybe it's the Laphroiag 10 Year I recently purchased (it's like they bottled a campfire on a foggy ocean beach). Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Maybe the drivers on my morning commute were especially obtuse (Utah County shouldn't be allowed to have this much construction all at once). Yeah, that's probably it. 

At any rate, I did some digging. It turns out that the original news article is no longer available. Not a good sign regarding the veracity of statistics. Luckily, the DABC reports on such things in their annual report. And it turns out that the numbers are even higher than the Reddit post suggested. In 2018, Utah liquor sales contributed $45.43 million to the school lunch program in Utah. This is a no nonsense, no strings attached charitable contribution for those in need. Pretty cool, huh?

The second part of the post is pretty vague. It simply states that the Mormon church donates less per year than the amount collected from liquor sales. So, I had to dig a little deeper. First I found that the Mormon church claims to have contributed $2.2 billion (with a "B") in charitable aid worldwide since 1985. Bold claim. Too bad I can't verify this beyond what the Mormons say since their financial records have been undisclosed since the 1950's. But, let's do the unconscionable and take them at their word. $2.2 billion over 34 years averages roughly $64.7 million per year. Not bad. Certainly not chump change. But that's not a very firm figure, so I dug deeper still.

According to the church's own newspaper (why would they lie, amirite?), one of the highest level leaders of the Mormon church, Dallin Oaks, claimed that the church contributes about $40 million per year to charitable causes worldwide, and has done so "for more than 30 years." At $40 million per year over 34 years (to 1985), that comes to a total of $1.36 billion. Now, I'm no math wiz, but $2.2 billion does not equal $1.36 billion. That's a pretty sizable discrepancy. $840,000,000 to be approximate. 

This tells me a few things. First, the church's newsroom and the church's own newspaper and the church's leadership are not on message. Come on, guys. Fudging numbers only works if you're all united. Second, if both claims are roughly true (again, I'm throwing them a Pangaea-sized bone here), then we would have to assume that Mr. Oaks is citing more recent contributions whereas the other figure is more long-term. This seems more than fair if we grant Mr. Oaks was summarizing off the cuff. If these colossal and beyond generous assumptions are true, then it would mean that in recent years the church has contributed at least $14 million less per year than just a few decades ago.

Furthermore, Utah liquor sales contribute more to the welfare system of Utah per year than the Mormon church contributes worldwide.

It should be noted that in that same time the Mormon church claims to have gained more than double the members (1985 reported 5,919,483 total membership; 2018 reported 16,313,735 total membership; over 34 years reported gaining 10,394,252 members worldwide). This means that when they had 5.9 million members worldwide they were contributing roughly $64.7 million in charitable aid worldwide, (possibly more since $64.7 million is the average and earlier years would probably have been higher to off-set the $14 million average loss in later years ($14 million + $64.7 million = $78.7 million)) and now that they have 16.3 million members they are only contributing $40 million per year. In other words, if the numbers they provided are accurate, the Mormon church has contributed significantly less in worldwide charitable aid in recent years than in years past despite claiming significantly more members. 

To put this all into perspective, in 2012 the Mormon church funded a brand new mall right next to the church's headquarters in Salt Lake City to the tune of $2 billion, which is almost as much as the more generous of the two estimated charitable contributions since 1985. Huh, makes sense...

None of this takes into account the common stipulations put on the church's welfare system (like paying the church 10% of your annual income before receiving financial aid--yeah, let that sink in), which I actually have firsthand experience with. As a missionary I was a branch president for a small congregation in Bulgaria. Several members asked me in person for welfare from the church, but since they did not meet the church's requirements for welfare (not full tithe payers) I was not allowed to give anyone any assistance. Let me repeat, when I was in charge of a Mormon congregation in a developing part of the world I was instructed by church higher ups to not give anyone welfare money because they did not give me money first. We didn't have any other charity to offer either, unless you count the free English classes we missionaries offered twice a week. That's it. That's literally all we did for the local community. The rest of our time was spent going door to door trying to convince people that if they didn't join our church and give us 10% of their income they wouldn't be able to see their family for the rest of eternity. 

Tell me again how churches are inherently good for society and deserve tax exempt status...

ZIONTOLOGY

Mormons have a bit of a reputation for being litigious and pedantic. Maybe they think these are attributes of god. I think it has more to do with the Church's push over the last 50 years or so to build hierarchy within the church resembling a corporation. This is also why the Mormon missionaries wear business attire (with backpacks) as they pedal their bicycles door to door. Anal-retentiveness seems to me to be a cheap substitute for perfection, which Mormons are happy to point to as an attribute of their "gospel" ("The church is perfect, even if its members aren't" "If a perfect church can't produce perfect members, then in what sense is it perfect?").

In recent years the former president of the church (notice that I didn't say "prophet"), Tommy Monson, fought hard to soften the public image of the church. He embraced their colloquial label "Mormon" and ran multiple public relations campaigns which utilized the word in a positive light (i.e. "I'm a Mormon," "mormonsandgays.com," etc.). It seemed to be working, actually. I don't no if it has really helped membership, but the image of the church has literally never been better. Fast forward to this week, however, and Tommy's successor, Russell Nelson, has effectively undone much of the PR gains of the Church.

Rusty Nelson has always been one of the biggest sticks in the mud of the Church's leadership. He reportedly was the driving force behind the Church's 2015 policy change concerning homosexuals in the church, which categorized active homosexuals--especially those in legal gay marriages--as apostates, and the children of which could not be baptized until they reached the age of eighteen and disavowed the sinful lifestyle of their parents (children of straight couples can be baptized at the age of eight without any disavowals). So, for those keeping score it came as no surprise when Ol' Rusty Bucket announced an update to the Church's media style guide.

I know, I know. A style guide? Does this really matter?

Honestly, I didn't think it mattered much at first. If the Church wants to sully their public image, far be it from me to stand in their way. But, I listened to a program on NPR this morning which addressed this issue as it directly pertains to them and how they discuss the Church in their programs. You see, part of the update to the style guide is that news agencies are no longer allowed to refer to the Church as "Mormon" or "Mormonism" or even "LDS." The Church's official statement says that news agencies should refer to the Church by its full name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (say that three times fast), in its first reference and all subsequent references should be "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" or the "restored Church of Jesus Christ" (Yeah, good luck with that last one). And members of the faith should be referred to as "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Latter-day Saints" and not "Mormons." [insert "eye roll"]

NPR's response--which I loved--was that it was not up to the Mormon Church to make this decision for news agencies or those who are not adherents to the religion. Furthermore, the term "Mormon" is used as a point of clarification for their listeners and readers, most of whom have no context for the long-winded official name of the Mormon Church.

Hell yeah, exactly this. Rusted Nail-son may want to dodge the Church's sordid history, much of which the Mormon Church has actively sought to bury from public knowledge for over a century, but it is the job of journalists to accurately convey information to the public. I commend NPR for politely declining the rebranding mandate from a man with the hubris to call himself god's mouthpiece. As some of the people on the program pointed out, if god really speaks to the world through this man, and this is one of the rare instances when the man claims to have received such a revelation from god, couldn't god have chosen a more important topic than the name of a church? Ya know, like poverty, world peace, climate change.

I'll tell you why. Because god has nothing to do with it. This is in the best interests of the Mormon Church, according to their CEO. This would be no different than a corporation having some horrible PR nightmare occur, and in an effort to reduce their losses, the board of directors completely remake their image and even change the name of the company in order to distance themselves from the disaster. It's all about business.

In related news, some people in the ex-Mormon community have proposed "Ziontology" as the new preferred name for the Mormon Church. And I kinda like it.

TALKING 'BOUT MY SUPERSTITION

Over the weekend several of my Mormon friends and family posted links to articles about a new revolutionary study which seems to confirm one of their favorite religious prohibitions against the consumption of alcohol.

On the surface, I get it. It feels nice to be vindicated. So, why not gloat a little bit? It's not like pride is a sin. Right?

I have a few things to say about this new study. First, the headlines of the articles linking this study are a bit misleading, claiming that "no amount" of alcohol is good for your overall health, etc. Right, just like no amount of soda, candy bars or binge watching Netflix is good for your overall health. The authors of the study admit from the outset that this particular point is complex and that there are some studies which show that moderate alcohol consumption "can have a protective effect on ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and several other outcomes." Before reading this study I had never heard of these benefits before. I assumed that it was general knowledge that alcohol wasn't really healthy and even people who cited those articles from the nineties about the potential health benefits of drinking red wine (which had more to do with the grapes used to make the wine than the alcohol) did so with a wink and a nod.

Second, the risk of lower alcohol consumption is proportionally lower than higher levels of consumption. Meaning, the more you drink, the higher the risk. This is a bit like saying the more you drive your car, the more likely you are to get into an accident. The only way to completely minimize one's risk of a car accident is to never get into a car. It should be apparent that this is an oversimplification, and, therefore, not very revolutionary, even when applied to alcohol.

Third, I have a problem with their lumping together of certain kinds of risks. Specifically, disease related risks (i.e. cancer and tuberculosis) and risks related to one's actions (i.e. car accidents and self harm). To me, these are important to distinguish because risks related to actions can be moderated through responsible drinking, and can be complicated through other factors like mental illness. If a person with depression drinks they are more likely to try to hurt themselves than someone without depression. From what I can gather, the study shows that there is a higher risk of alcohol contributing to deaths caused by accidents and self harm than caused by disease especially among people under 50 years old. The study also claims that for people between 15-49 alcohol is one of the most common factors for cause of death. What I infer from this is that one shouldn't drink and drive, and one shouldn't drink if they have depression or another mental illness which might be affected by alcohol. Furthermore, these factors can be managed through responsible drinking, and knowing one's limits. 

Fourth, the study is limited in that its methodology basically amounts to drawing conclusions based on correlations, and the integrity of the results depends on the methodology of other researchers (if a study used a flawed methodology it would affect the meta-analysis). This is a problem of meta-analyses in general. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for for these limitations (most likely financial), and I'm not saying this discredits the study necessarily. I'm saying this is a potential problem which makes it difficult to prove causality. If anything, this just shows the need for further research, especially since this particular study claims to dispute some findings of previous studies. 

Alcohol has risks. No one has seriously disputed this in decades. But lots of things have risks. Lots of good things like driving cars or other foods and drinks. Lots of medications, such as aspirin, Tylenol and Ibuprofen, have negative effects on one's liver similar to alcohol, although to lesser degrees. These risks should absolutely be accounted for while making a decision. But let's not pretend that Mormons abstain from alcohol for health reasons (Utah has more soda shops than bars, despite the link between soda and type II diabetes). 

The Word of Wisdom (the basis for the Mormon prohibition against alcohol) is actually not against all alcohol consumption, and even says that wine is preferred for use in the sacrament: 

"5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies."

There are even some who argue that the WoW did not intend to prohibit beer--only wine and liquor. This is how some Mormons justify their use of Kombucha. Not to mention that Joseph Smith, the one who wrote the WoW, never made it a hard set rule, but only a suggestion and continued to drink alcohol with his apostles until the day he died. 

Let's suppose that there are no issues with this study and that there is now clear and indisputable evidence that alcohol is always bad and will eventually kill everyone everywhere. Until such evidence was found, believers did not have a sound reason for abstaining from alcohol. Refusing to do something because god told you not to do it is not a good reason to not do it. And now that there is a good reason to not do it believers do not get to retroactively claim that they were justified all along. 

Muslims and Orthodox Jews have prohibited the consumption of pork for centuries. The original claim was that pigs shouldn't be eaten because they are unclean animals. This was a spiritual claim, not a hygienic one. Now that modern science can examine the composition of meats, some Jews and Muslims are claiming vindication because pork has high sodium and fat content. They claim that god knew this all along and he was protecting them through these prohibitions. Well, pork isn't the only meat with high sodium and fat content. So is beef, and that is totally Kosher (so long as it doesn't have cheese on it, of course). And if god is using these ancient prohibitions to save lives, why didn't he reveal something useful, like washing your hands before you eat or after delivering a child. 

There are plenty of reasons to not drink alcohol, including just simply not having a desire to drink it. But using a religious prohibition as a reason to not do something is tantamount to superstition. And if a superstition turns out to have a nugget of truth behind it, it is still not wisdom. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Christopher Hitchens on superstitions, among other things:

HIGH-MINDED HIVE MIND

There has been a long-winded debate among Mormons and ExMormons about the Church's influence over politics. I first came across this argument when GOP primary winner, and man whose political career died trying, Mitt Romney ran for US president in 2012. The question came up of whether or not the Church might try to influence Mitt's policies as president or outright tell him what to do. A similar concern arose of JFK in relation to the Vatican. At the time, Mitt assured voters that he would represent his constituents and not be bullied into submission by a church which has had a sordid political history.

In the past the Mormon Church has sought to influence politics in very direct ways. As early as their first settlements in the American frontier, Mormon founder, and man who repeatedly takes your 14 year old daughter behind the barn to "just talk about God and stuff," Joseph Smith had gathered thousands of followers in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. These small communities which relied almost entirely on local government were soon overrun by apocalyptic "Latter-day Saints" with a single religious mind who all voted according to their prophet's conscience (a prophet who was convicted of fraud in his youth for convincing other men to dig for buried treasure by staring at a magic stone in a hat, and who later started a religion based on an ancient gold book he found in the dirt which he "translated" by using a magic stone in a hat, and wouldn't let anyone with a background in linguistics touch it).

It is no wonder, then, that the locals responded with violence to oust their hive-minded new neighbors (who also happened to be stealing their wives and daughters as polygamous sister-wives, which is also why the Church was so in favor of a woman's right to vote since it would effectively give Mormon polygamous households several more votes).

The Church has learned over the years to be more subtle in their political influence. But as we have seen over the past few decades, the Church still can't keep its greasy fingers off of certain issues. We still don't know the full extent to which the Church has actively sought to thwart the gay rights movement in Hawaii and California. In Hawaii they kept to the shadows when gay marriage was proposed, but became much more brazen when the issue came up as Prop 8 in California, issuing an official statement from the Church to be read over the pulpits asking members to donate their time and as much money as they could to fight this societal evil. And many people took the Church seriously, sacrificing their children's college education to help fund the anti-gay marriage agenda (the Church teaches that members will face a choice like Abraham sacrificing his son Issac as a show of good faith to God, and people look for such sacrifices in their lives believing God is testing their faith).

For years the Church has denied any wrong doing regarding Prop 8 (among other things), and claims that most of their donations, like their humanitarian efforts, came in the form of faithful members volunteering their time. Maybe this is true, but many sources (such as the documentary "8: A Mormon Proposition") have shown that the Church has donated a metric butt-load of money as well.

More recently the church has sought to influence politics in Utah, where they have the strongest foothold. Around the time the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage (2015), the Church successfully got the Utah legislature to incorporate protections for "religious liberty" in a bill which offered housing and employment protections for LGBT people. In other words, the Church successfully pleaded for the right to discriminate against gay people.

They have also successfully changed votes in the state senate regarding other issues, such as medical marijuana, liquor laws and comprehensive sex education. And despite their long history of breaching the bounds of tax exemption, officially the Church has maintained that they DO NOT tell their members how to vote (see video below).

Next they'll be telling me the Church no longer practices polygamy.

Well, in recent news--yesterday, in fact--the Church sent out a mass email to members in the state of Utah asking ever so politely that they vote "NO" on a bill which would legalize medical marijuana (see left).

It seems that no one told self-proclaimed prophet of God, and nonagenarian who's pretty sure today is a weekday, Russell Nelson that there are some things a prophet just can't do (should we tell him God is supposed to be omniscient?). I guess this is what happens when you send a self-righteous heart surgeon to do an attorney's job.

And, of course, the IRS will do nothing regarding the Church's tax exempt status. The best we can hope for is that enough ExMormons petition the Freedom From Religion Foundation to sue the Church.

The thing I don't understand is why the Church gets involved at all. They have a long list of prohibitions for their members which include many legal things, such as tobacco and alcohol, coffee and tea, premarital sex, watching R rated movies, dating before the age of 16, wearing revealing clothes, swearing, shopping on Sundays, etc. Yet, when issues come up in American politics (notably, not the rest of the world), the Church shoves itself into the conversation where less than 2% of the population (at best!) adheres to their worldview. Why not stay out of it and if it becomes legal, like gay marriage and alcohol and everything else, just issue yet-another prohibition for members. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Sigh...




BONUS MATERIAL:




Former Mormon prophet, and nice young man just trying to pay for college by selling magazine subscriptions, Gordon Hinckley reassuring the public that the Mormon Church does not tell members how to vote.

BANG YOUR HEAD

A few months ago, at the most recent Mormon General Conference, a man named Garrit Gong was named an apostle of the church. This is significant if for no other reason than the fact that he is the first Mormon apostle to have skin darker than medium beige ("Now are we diverse?"). Along with this new title came the accolades of "prophet, seer, and revelator" (Tell me, again, about religious humility...). Well, as it turns out, during my tenure at BYU I had a few run-ins with Mr. Gong, which allows me to say unequivocally that he (despite his skin color) is without a doubt the most "white bread" church leader I have ever met. Even by Mormon standards, he is positively vanilla.

It is generally well known that to become an apostle in the modern Mormon church you have to undergo a thorough vetting process. The church is surprisingly savvy when it comes to public relations (with a few exceptions regarding civil liberties like race, sexism, homophobia. Ya know, small stuff.), and they have a history of selecting non-controversial figures as their leaders (at least since ultra-conservative President of the church Ezra Benson led them down the "civil rights for blacks leads to Communism" path). I guess having polygamous firebrands like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as their founders will make an organization a bit self-conscious in the public arena today. And so, evidently, for several decades the church has made it a point to stock the shelves with leaders who have about as much life experience as Charlie Brown. And Mr. Gong makes Charlie Brown look like a Garbage Pail Kid.

First, I went to a Stake Conference where Mr. Gong was the presiding authority. From what I recall, he spent some time talking about his background, and shared some anecdotes which he thought the auditorium of a thousand or more young men and young women would find spiritually uplifting. All I found was an unshakable desire for a nap, which I quickly remedied once I returned home. This was around the time in my journey out of the church that I realized that I didn't much care for church meetings which were all filled with the same weak appeals to authority, fallacious arguments from ignorance, and unfalsifiable claims about the nature of the universe. So, maybe I wasn't in the proper head space to truly appreciate the greatness of this man. Fair enough.

Second, Mr. Gong decided to make the ward circuit and hold special meetings with all of the Elders Quorums in his stake. This is not unheard of, and many Mormons today would likely envy my being present for such an intimate, close-quarters discussion led by a newly appointed apostle (never let it be said that Mormons are impervious to hero worship). So what topic did this self-proclaimed man of god and future "Special Witness of Christ" (TM) chose to impart to a classroom of young adult men and future leaders of the church? He set up the projector to display a PowerPoint presentation he had prepared about the pros and cons of the World Wide Web.

Yup. This was the indispensable information he chose to share with us. He started out by sharing some statistics about the prevalence of porn use among young men in the church (I have no idea if his numbers were accurate, but that's not really the point). And he shared a few stories about people misusing the internet and falling away from the church (usually through porn). He then countered everything he just said by pointing to all the great things the internet can be used for, like family history research, preparing for Sunday School lessons and talks, etc. You know the drill.

Of course you know the drill. Everyone knows this particular drill. And that is exactly my point. Mr. Gong had nothing of substance to add to the conversation. Every person in that room could have just as easily given the same lesson and made the same "moderation in all things" argument we've all heard a thousand times. There was nothing revolutionary about what he said. Furthermore, I recall having a conversation with my roommates (some of whom are still active believing members of the church, so don't they feel sheepish) about how pointless and uninspired that whole lesson was. Seriously, we had a good laugh on the drive home.

So what am I getting at? This is the current state of affairs for god's "One True Church" on the earth. This is the great awakening which Mormons believe is taking place all over the planet as they baptize new members and strengthen their numbers. They are becoming less and less distinct from other Christian denominations because they desperately want to be taken seriously on the world stage. And soon enough (or maybe not soon enough) the things which make the Mormon church unique in any way will be white washed away and they will look just like everyone else. They will become a distinct denomination without a difference. And maybe then, one can hope, they will finally become truly obsolete.




BONUS MATERIAL:




Mr. Gong tackling the provocative topic of science-based morality in his usual mind-numbingly mundane tone:

MODERATE INTELLIGENCE

I recently had the unexpected pleasure of discussing Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith) with a Mormon. By "unexpected pleasure" I mean that although this individual disagrees with Sam Harris on several points, he was still open to the conversation and willing to consider other points of view. Two points of contention this person has with Sam Harris are his anti-theistic views of religion generally (which I totally understand from a believing Mormon's perspective) and Sam's seemingly disparaging views of Islam specifically.

On the first point, I recommended this person look up Christopher Hitchens and reconsider whether Sam Harris really is that hostile towards religion in comparison.

On the second point, well, it gets more complicated. On the one hand, I think that Sam Harris has some valid and pointed criticisms of Islam and has made a career speaking publicly about the potential, and in some cases demonstrable, harm which the religion's scriptures and preachments can produce.

For instance, the infamous 9/11 hijacking was committed by the truest of believers, as was the murder of Danish cartoonists and filmmakers, the fatwa on the head of Salman Rushdie for the crime of writing a fictional book, the fatwa on Ayaan Hirsi Ali for leaving the religion and speaking out against chopping off the clitoris of baby girls, the countless and ongoing atrocities committed by ISIS against homosexuals and infidels, the murderous riots which stemmed from an inflammatory video daring to depict the Prophet Muhammad (one of which resulted in the Benghazi kerfuffle), and many other instances of faithful Muslims who take their religion and its texts literally.

The trouble with Sam's view, or rather the perception of Sam's view which I would argue he hasn't done enough to correct, is that these many examples of extremism are not representative of the religion as a whole, in much the same way that not all Christians are responsible for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan, the Holocaust, bombings of abortion clinics or the murder of abortion doctors. To confound the matter, many misunderstand Sam Harris' criticisms of the beliefs and tenets of Islam as bigotry against Muslim people (see video below).

In a way, and I am hardly the first to make this point, the Muslim world is currently undergoing a series of growing pains similar to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Hopefully more moderate Muslims will win out, as with Christians, but only time will tell. And I think this is Sam's overall point in criticizing Islam. It's not that Islam necessarily results in terrorism. But rather that it's teachings can be interpreted in such a way that terrorism is a result. A Christian example would be how Hitler exploited traditional Christian beliefs and prejudices about the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus to build his Nazi army.

Likewise, the Bible supports some terrible things as well, such as the subjugation of women, the genocide of various middle eastern tribes, the stoning of homosexuals, apostates, disobedient children, those who work on the Sabbath, those who eat shellfish and those who wear mixed fabrics. If any Christian or Jewish sect followed the Bible literally and enforced these rules--which believers often defend as morally necessary for the time and people of the Bible--we in civilized society would have a moral obligation to stamp it out. Fortunately, however, most Christians and Jews don't take their holy books that seriously.

So when Sam Harris calls Islam "the mother load of bad ideas" understand that he means this in a context in which Muslims take their religion seriously and literally, and that the only real criticism a moderate believer can level against a scriptural literalist is a lack of nuance which all too often is based on an irreconcilable cognitive dissonance in the mind of the moderate. In other words, the reason a moderate is not a literalist is often because taking scripture literally--like when the Bible tells you what is an acceptable consequence for a disobedient slave--conflicts with a person's inner morality. Both are arguing from a position of faith and a presumption of scriptural authority, rather than reason and evidence. Therefore, how can one side claim the other is wrong in any absolute sense?

It seems to me that the best way for Muslims and Christians and Jews to assimilate into a cooperative multicultural society may well be for the growing moderates to cherry pick their respective religious texts and disregard the unpleasant bits. We may in fact depend on this apparent hypocrisy. The trouble seems to come from believing in the inerrancy of scripture. As much as I would like to see religion become a thing of the past, I must admit that a world of self-serving cherry-picking moderates is preferable to a world of valiant idealistic literalists.

And in an effort for transparency, I have been guilty of making sweeping generalizations about Muslims in the past of the sort Sam Harris is often accused, and have even written posts on this blog which today make me cringe. I have considered taking the posts down, but I feel they are an important part of my journey away from religion, as painful as they may be to me now.



BONUS MATERIAL:



Sam Harris calling Islam "the mother load of bad ideas" and Ben Affleck losing his mind:

LUKEWARM REASONING

One of the blackest marks on the Mormon church's sordid history has been its racist policies against people of color (see what I did there?). Until 1978 the church banned black men from holding the priesthood, which was tantamount to making them second-class members (not unlike women in the church today). This is fairly well known and is even referenced in the popular Broadway play "The Book of Mormon." But this was only one part of the policy.

A lesser known, but arguably much more impactful and sinister part of the policy, was that black men and women were not allowed entrance into Mormon temples. This meant that black people could not go through the endowment ceremony or get married in the temple, which Mormons believe are necessary rites to be allowed into the highest, most glorious parts of heaven. Effectively, black people could not go to the best version of the afterlife.

The argument which the church gave for this policy for well over a hundred years was that before the Earth was created, there was a war in heaven in which all people had to choose to support either Jesus or Satan. One third of these spirit children chose to support Satan and were cast out of heaven, and cursed to be demons on Earth to tempt humans into sinning. Eventually Satan and his minions will be cast to "Outer Darkness" which is basically annihilation. This will also be the fate of heretics and apostates who go through the temple ceremonies and then leave the church (there is some debate here among believers, so I may or may not qualify).

Another third of the spirit children chose to follow Jesus and made it to Earth in, let's say, preferential conditions. Specifically--and this is where the racism starts in Mormonism--these righteous and obedient spirits were granted white bodies and were thus allowed to go through the Mormon temples and earn their way to heaven.

The middle third of spirit children were somewhat on the fence about the whole thing. Eventually, they sided with Jesus, but were "lukewarm" in their resolve. As a result of their wishy washy passiveness in the pre-mortal life, they were "cursed" with the mark of Cain, which is a skin of blackness. This genetic line is said to have been preserved through the Great Flood through one of Noah's sons, Ham, who married a Canaanite woman.

Let me said it again, for over a hundred years Mormon church leaders taught that the reason black men couldn't hold the priesthood and black people couldn't go through the temple endowment and were therefore not allowed into heaven was because they were less valiant in the War in Heaven before they were born.

So, why bring this up? After all, it's been forty years since the church changed this policy and allowed black people full membership (well, for the men at least). What's the big deal?

Well, it turns out that the church is celebrating the 1978 policy change this month! They are actually drawing attention to it themselves. And as part of the celebration for not being racist anymore, the highest leaders in the church recently met with representatives from the NAACP. When this occurred last month, a prankster faked an apology from the church on a website meant to look like the official Mormon Newsroom website, and caused quite a stir. (The Infants on Thrones podcast did an extensive episode on the whole debacle which can be heard here.)

Part of the reason so many Mormons--especially those of color--are up in arms about this hoax is that it revealed their deep desire for an unqualified apology from the church. One such Mormon, Zandra Vranes, responded quite vehemently that the prankster was not a friend of black people, and they were like someone telling a rape victim that their rapist (i.e. the church) offered a heartfelt apology for the crime. The victim would feel vindicated and one step closer to healing, only to find out that the apology wasn't genuine. This would put the victim in an emotional roller coaster.

On the one hand, I feel sorry for Zandra. As she pointed out, the prankster probably didn't consider the negative effect his hoax would have on faithful black Mormons. On the other hand, I feel like her anger is misplaced. The emotional wound she is experiencing is a result of the century of racism in the church she defends. The man who faked the apology didn't hurt her. The church did. And she admits that she didn't realize how much she wanted or needed to hear an apology from the church until the fake one came out. This has apparently caused her to wrestle with the church's racism all over again in a very public way. So, say what you will about the callousness the prankster may have exhibited, but now people are talking about an issue which has hurt a lot of people and the church has tried to minimize. Hopefully some believers will be forced to confront their faith in a bold way and make it out of the church's clutches, possibly even Zandra. I would consider that a win.

In similar news, there is a new apologetic response to the Mormon church's racism. LDS Living published an article declaring that the church was racist for over a hundred years and its leaders defended that racism based on a simple misunderstanding of a word. You see, the word "black" has multiple meanings, one of which is "gloomy, dejected, or spiritual darkness, and has nothing to do with skin tone." The author offers a similar argument for the word "curse" to show that a "curse of blackness" (a common phrase in Mormon scripture) has nothing to do with skin color. By extension, when the Book of Mormon says that god "cursed" the wicked Lamanites with a "skin of blackness"' so they would not be "enticing" to the righteous Nephites, thus keeping the Nephite line "white and delightsome" (which was the common understanding of those scriptures for over a hundred years), it has nothing to do with the color of their skin! Isn't that swell? So, the church wasn't racist for over a century. The church's leaders were racist for over a century. See the difference? Never mind that god allegedly dictated the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith word for word and could have easily just used a clearer word like "gloomy, dejected, or spiritual darkness" instead of "black," or that Mormon leaders have said from the beginning that god would not let the prophet lead the church astray even if it means taking him out. No! Forget all of that, and just take us at our word that god allowed countless black people to live without the blessings of the priesthood and the temple ordinances, and without the prospect of going to heaven because racist church leaders didn't realize that the word "black" has multiple meanings.

You know, there is another word in scripture which has a common second meaning: "risen." So the next time you read about Jesus' resurrection, and they say "He is risen" don't just assume the centuries old conventional understanding that Jesus literally came back to life after being crucified. No! That's just silly! Instead--like the article suggests--use the second meaning of the word and understand that Jesus' doughy, leavened body has expanded to twice its normal size and is now ready to be put into a preheated oven.

Your move, apologists.

UNDER THE RUG

In the ever-growing wake of religious scandals (abuse and rape of children, fraud, theft, dark political money) the Mormon church has always found a way to minimize its own questionable practices as they come to public light. For instance, when critics found millions of dollars of money coming from the church to influence the 2008 vote in California on Proposition 8 (which would change the California constitution to make gay marriage illegal), believers said the figure was grossly exaggerated, and that most of the funds came in the form of Mormon volunteers going door to door to rally supporters for "traditional marriage."

In November 2015 the church announced that homosexuals are considered apostates to the church and that children of homosexuals in a gay marriage could not join the church until they reached the age of eighteen (rather than eight) and only after they formally denounce the gay marriage of their parents. The church tried to soften the PR blow back by interviewing D. Todd Christofferson (a high ranking Mormon Apostle with a conveniently gay brother) by an active believing lackey fielding pre-approved softball questions emphasizing that the church super duper loves gay people and the purpose of this change is to not cause division among gay households, just like they do with polygamous households (never mind that gay marriage is legal and polygamy is not).

When the church received criticism about conducting "worthiness" interviews of adolescents as young as twelve years old, wherein the church leader would ask explicit detailed questions about the youth's sexuality and masturbation practices, the church reluctantly--and only recently--conceded that parents could be present during such interviews (apparently this isn't a new thing, and there is a protest march at Temple Square scheduled for this Friday. Fun.). It should be noted that even with this "change" church leaders will still ask pre-teen boys and girls whether or not they masturbate with the intent to help them repent of their transgression. 

When concerned Mormon parents encouraged a grassroots movement to record these sexually explicit interviews of minors to show the world how inappropriate such questions are for a grown man to be asking children, the Utah state legislature tried to pass a law which would make such recordings illegal (how's that for separation of church and state?).

When the church came under scrutiny for not encouraging church leaders to report child abuse to the police, the church's attourneys responded with the "Gold Standard" defense, claiming that if they reported abuse to the police, fewer people would feel comfortable confiding in the bishop. 

In 1978--well past the tail end of the civil rights movement--the Mormon church, which had always maintained that god will never grant priesthood authority to black men because of the curse of Cain and their lackluster performance during the pre-mortal war in heaven, backtracked on the issue and allowed black people full membership rights, including admission into their temples and allowing black men to hold priesthood office. Mormons still have a hard time understanding why black people aren't jumping at the chance to join the church nearly forty years after this announcement.

In 1890 the Mormon church announced that the eternal principal of plural marriage (i.e. polygamy) would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. In 1904 the Mormon church announced again that the eternal principal of plural marriage would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. Why the second announcement? Because many believing faithful Mormons didn't buy the ruse. They knew that the only reason the Mormon president made the announcement in the first place was because the US government was threatening to seize the church's assets, including their million dollar mini-mansions (i.e. temples). It was largely seen as a political move, and even the president of the church who made the announcement, Wilford Woodruff, married yet-another-wife afterwards. Those who did not see it as a political move denounced Woodruff as a false prophet. Now the church hems and haws and tries to downplay the importance that polygamy played in the church, but their scriptures and several decades of church leadership clearly and unequivocally state that polygamy is necessary to reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. To this day several Mormon sects and even individual Mormon leaders still practice polygamy (including current president of the church Russell Nelson!). 

Most recently a woman has accused Joseph Bishop (a high profile Mormon who has held very significant positions within the church, such as Mission President in Argentina, Mission President to the Missionary Training Center, and President of Weber State University) of sexual abuse and attempted rape while she was a missionary under him in the MTC (mid 1980s). I won't go into the details of the abuse here since others have done so quite thoroughly (Infants of Thrones, Mormon Stories). Instead I want to focus on the church's response to these allegations (their official statement). 

The long and short of it is that the church claims it went through proper legal channels and reported the abuse to police and did not have enough evidence on their own to issue any discipline to Bishop at the time (to put this into context, a couple years ago John Dehlin was excommunicated for using the Mormon Stories podcast to discuss problems with Mormon church history and abuses by the church against homosexuals, and Kate Kelly was excommunicated for creating the Ordain Women movement and suggesting that the church should allow women to hold the same leadership positions as men within the church). This is strange to me since we now know of a second woman who has made similar accusations against Bishop, and the first woman recorded a conversation between herself and Bishop wherein he admits he "confessed all his sins" to his ecclesiastical leader, including the abuse of both of these women. He also strongly implies that he abused other women for many years. 

Maybe he's lying. Maybe the recording was faked. Maybe it's all true, but the church didn't know the details or extent of the abuse. Maybe the church is lying. Who knows? But let's suppose that the church's version of the story is completely true. Does this make things better? Not in the view of a believing Mormon. 

You see, Mormons believe that their church leaders have what they call "the power of discernment." Basically this means that they have a direct line to god and if someone is lying during a worthiness interview (like when they ask a twelve year old girl if she masturbates) god will let the church leader know. Nothing gets past god. Except, apparently, Joseph Bishop. 

A couple years ago I posted something on my Facebook page about Utah having an unusually high suicide and homelessness rate for gay teens as a direct result of the November 2015 policy change discussed above. In response, a Mormon acquaintance sent me a blog article (unfortunately the link appears to be broken), which sought to make the case that Utah had the same rate of suicide for gay teens as any other state. If I had granted that this blogger's assessment was accurate, I would still be left asking why Utah wasn't better than all the other states. If the Mormon church is true, then surely they should be better suited to help those most in need of support. The claim that the predominately Mormon state of Utah is just as bad as anywhere else is a tacit admission that the church doesn't really make things better in important social matters. 

Furthermore, that fact that the church has such a long history of being several years behind every social movement of the past hundred years (with the exception of women having the right to vote, which Mormon apologists love to point out, but which can easily be explained as an opportunistic way for Mormons who still practiced polygamy to cast more votes per household. So there's that.) begs the question, in what sense is the Mormon church true? In what sense does the church make people behave better? In what sense does god lead the church and its leaders? 

Why would god not tell Joseph Bishop's priesthood leader that he's lying about his worthiness? Why would god allow Bishop to be promoted through the ranks of the church amid prolonged sexual abuse? For Mormons who want to fall back on the adage that god does not intervene due to agency, first of all, that is a terribly convenient excuse, don't you think? Second, that doesn't explain why god allowed Bishop to be promoted. In addition to leaders having the power of discernment, Mormons believe that if a leader becomes sinful or abuses their power, god will remove them from that position. Why didn't he do it to Bishop? 

What the hell, here's a scripture for reference: D&C 121:37 "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

It's almost as if god doesn't exist... 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tracie Harris on god allowing children to be raped.

USER FRIENDLY

I have heard religious people use the following scripture as an argument against atheism: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." This is the theological equivalent schoolyard name calling. If by "fool" they mean a person who does not believe the same unsubstantiated nonsense as they believe, well, it seems to be more of a compliment than an insult. Such provocations only serve to expose the weakness of their arguments. If there was anything of substance to be presented, they would not fall upon insults to rattle their opponent. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, as Matt Dillahunty points out. Name calling is not an argument.

It is in this vein of "I know you are, but what am I?" that I have a hard time stomaching some of the ideas promoted in the most recent General Conference of the Mormon Church. One leader, Mr. Dieter Uchtdorf, flat out said that skepticism is the easy path and lacks the moral courage and integrity that a faith-filled life requires. This is absurd and condescending to anyone who has wrestled with difficult topics while a believing Mormon.

Problems and inconsistencies in the Mormon narrative, especially regarding history and the veracity of Mormon scripture, have caused many people over the years to question whether the church is true. This phenomenon has only accelerated with the advent of the Internet, which has increased the layman's access to information. In the past, when someone heard disconcerting information they would have to pour through volumes of books in order to find the truth. Now, most people can fact check claims they hear in church on their phones as they sit in the pews. Pulling wool over the eyes of the average Joe has become more challenging to charlatans everywhere.

  

The accessibility of information and the effect of raising doubts in members has become a growing problem for the Mormon church. Many people have speculated that this problem has caused the church to be more open about their history in recent essays published by the church, in an attempt to get ahead of the curve of dwindling membership.

Surely, amid the commotion, Mr. Uchtdorf has spoken to sincere believers who struggle with their new-found doubts. Surely, he has heard their pleas for satisfactory and comprehensive answers to their questions. Surely, he has seen the alienation that comes to members who doubt and the strength of character it takes to step away from the church of their family and friends. How dare he call it the "easy way." There is nothing easy about it.

I have a hard time believing that someone in Mr. Uchtdorf's position could make such a statement naively. Which implies that he made a conscious decision to ostracize a growing segment of the population of the church.

Another idea promoted in this conference is that true-believing members should only read church approved sources for historical information. In particular, members should avoid the Internet when researching the church. This is obviously a response to the problem described above that members are coming across information on the Internet which disproves the user-friendly version of church history promoted by the church itself. The more the church can control the narrative, the more they can insulate members from facts which challenge faith.

This is done out of necessity, of course. Without resorting to such totalitarian tactics, the church would likely continue to lose members--especially young adults--which directly threatens their coffers. And without ever-inflating tax-free money bags, how else would the church buy another multi-billion dollar high-end mall?

GIVE MY REGARDS TO SOUTH PARK

"In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith,
who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad golddigging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers. However, within four years he was back in the local newspapers (all of which one may still read) as the discoverer of the "Book of Mormon."
--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

Remember that one time when the Mormon Church apologized for excommunicating church historians who exposed various unflattering aspects of the church's history? Remember that other time when the church admitted that Joseph Smith married underage teenage girls by threatening them with the eternal damnation of their entire families, and that he shipped off men to the other side of the world so he could steal their wives? Remember the time the Mormon Church admitted--finally--that the reason they bought the fake historical document "The Salamander Letter" (wherein Joseph claimed that the angel Moroni appeared to him in the form of a salamander) is because there exist legitimate historical documents detailing Joseph's claim that the angel Moroni appeared to him in the form of a toad?

Yeah, me neither...

You can imagine my surprise, then, when I heard that the Mormon Church would be releasing a photo of the fabled "seer stone" which Joseph tried and failed to use to find buried treasure and claimed to use to "translate" the gold plates.

I first heard about this magic rock while on a two-year Mormon mission. I didn't believe it. I thought it was a hoax. The other missionary assured me that their seminary teacher knew for a fact that stone existed, but I could see no reason to believe it. It was one of my first moments of religious skepticism.

Traditionally Mormons have taught that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim (small clear stones attached to a breastplate, often described as primitive glasses, which is yet another example of technology of Joseph's day bleeding into his version of the ancient world) to translate his mystical plates.

For over a century the scene has always been described in church meetings and in published paintings and drawings as Joseph sitting at a table looking through the Urim and Thummim reading the gold plates word for word (the idea was that the reformed Egyptian on the plates would appear in English when looked upon through these magical spectacles). A cloth partition separated Joseph from his scribe (a position filled by various people who had a vested interest in the success of the Book of Mormon) so that they could not see the plates, which Joseph was quick to remind them was coupled with a curse: should they look on the plates without god's permission, they will surely die and go to hell. Considering the credulous culture in which Joseph's scribes lived, it is no wonder that none of them ever saw the plates with out a cloth cover (with the exception of 3 of Joseph's most superstitious patsies, none of which were qualified to verify the authenticity of the record). To a thinking person, this is a gigantic red flag.

With the admission of the existence of the magic treasure seeking stone comes a whole new story about the translation process. Joseph would put the stone in a hat (to block out light) and read the illuminated words on the stone. Ya know, like a magical iPad. Often the gold plates were not in the same room as Joseph. In other words, it turns out the scene of Joseph Smith doing this folk magic in South Park's episode "All About Mormons"--a scene which many Mormons dismissed out of hand as a preposterous, slanderous and "anti-Mormon"--was correct!

One of the more concerning aspects of this admission is that the Church has had this stone for at least several decades, and yet, until now they have done nothing to correct the misconception--which they helped to create--that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim to translate the plates directly. Apparently, all the ancient artifacts which Moroni carefully preserved and then directed Joseph to, were not even necessary for Joseph to translate the plates!

On the other hand, now that the seer stone is public and the top 15 leaders of the Church claim to be seers, we now have an opportunity for them to put their claim to the test! You see, one of Joseph's more gullible scribes, Martin Harris, was tasked to a take a scrap of paper with some of the characters from the gold plates to a linguist, Dr. Charles Anthon, to verify that the language was authentic. The story goes that Dr. Anthon wrote a certificate of authenticity for the paper, but upon learning of the supernatural origins of the paper, he torn up the certificate and demanded to see the gold plates himself.

For over a century Mormons have claimed that this story proves that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record, while critics have claimed the opposite. Well, here is the test. Give the seer stone--the same one Joseph used--to one of the Mormon leaders and have them translate the paper given to Dr. Anthon (which according to his account, is nothing short of gibberish). Once we have the characters decoded, which would have a chapter and verse citation for comparison, we can finally understand reformed Egyptian (the language which Joseph claimed to be on the gold plates, and which modern linguists claim is not a real language).

This kind of linguistic support would surely bolster the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic historical record. The fact that the Church has had the characters from the Book of Mormon, several men who claim to be "seers," and a seer stone for at least several decades and no one has done this test reveals quite a bit to me about the Church's confidence in their bald assertions.

This appears to be an attempt by the Church to distance themselves from the hokey folk magic Joseph practiced. Unable to bury the connection between the origins of their religion with superstition and crude magic which educated people generally dismiss as ignorant--in large part due to the advent of the internet--the Church is now being forced to face their history. Of course, now some Mormons are claiming to have been forthcoming on the subject of magic rocks all along.

BONUS MATERIAL:

Flackerman discusses the Church's history on the seer stone (among other things):

South Park explaining the translation process of the Book of Mormon:

I DISSENT

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."

--Chapman Cohen

It seems that I am not the only person having fun arguing with religious people on Facebook. A friend of mine, who has also left Mormonism, recently posted his thoughts on the current debacle between the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the fallout of which has devout Mormons squirming.

For years the BSA has been wrestling with its policies which discriminate against gays. Some revisions came down the pike a year or so ago, thus allowing openly gays kids to participate in the program without being kicked out. This caused a bit of a stir among Mormons at the time, but now, apparently, they are claiming that they were in support of this revision all along. I have some gay ex-Mormon friends who might challenge this claim...

At any rate, the question now is whether or not openly gay men can be leaders in the organization. In typical religious fashion--standing in opposition to facts and reason--Mormons are upset that the BSA has recently reversed their outdated discriminatory policy, which will allow gay men to be scout leaders.

Their objection, which they hold to be doctrinal, and therefore, a form of religious liberty, is that it is inappropriate for gay men to be leaders of youth groups. Apparently Mormons still think that gays try to "recruit" teens and that homosexuality is closely linked to pedophilia--both of these misconceptions are dispelled by science.

As my friend points out, Mormons have no problem with straight men overseeing Girl's Camp (the lesser-funded female version of Scout Camp). Nor do they object that these same men ask male and female teens--behind closed doors--intimate questions about their sex lives. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Although I have huge problems with religious-based bigotry, I do agree that the Mormon Church has the right to exclude gays from their organization (for the same reasons that the KKK can refuse to allow black people in their group). Unfortunately for Mormons, however, the BSA is not justified in their discrimination since they are a multicultural organization which receives government kickbacks, and financial stipends.

For instance, the BSA is allowed free access to hundreds of military personnel and millions of dollars of equipment--paid for with tax dollars--for their annual national jamboree. Also, many of the Boy Scout facilities and camps are on government-owned property and the BSA is charged a lowly $1 a year for rent.

These are major perks which other youth programs and nonprofits are not afforded by the government. This kind of support is the reason so many people are calling for a revision in the BSA's discriminatory policies. The Mormon Church is free to discriminate, but the government is not.

In response to all the hubbaballoo, the Mormon Church has issued a statement that, should the BSA go through with this change (allowing gay Scout leaders), then the Church will withdraw from the BSA and start their own scouting program. This will be a major blow to the BSA since the Mormon Church is their single largest supporter (approximately 25-30% of all scout troops are Mormon-run). This has been one major reason why the BSA has been so reluctant to change their policy.

The magnitude of the Mormon-BSA relationship is precisely what the Mormon Church relies upon when making the threat to withdraw from the BSA. Mormons are known for many things (some less favorable than others), one of which is sticking with their principles. They are also known for managing money well.

Should the Mormon Church withdraw all support and sever all ties with the BSA (a relationship about 100 years old, by the way), then whatever scouting substitute the Church devises will NOT receive the same government support as the BSA. This means that Mormons will spend significantly more money to run their scouting program.

It is because of this unavoidable monetary spike that I think the Mormon Church is bluffing. I think they will not pull the trigger on their threats of disassociation. I think they are trying to create a power play to strong-arm the BSA. Should the BSA go through with their policy change, I strongly doubt the Mormon Church will make good on their promise to withdraw--the financial stakes are too high. But, only time will tell.

In the post my ex-Mormon friend wrote on his Facebook page he mentioned that he had left the Church. And from out of the woodwork crawled some of his devout Mormon friends, hellbent on defending Mormonism and, if possible, saving my friend in the process.

One Mormon devotee wrote an especially pretentious and closed-minded response to my friend, [N]:

Sam:

"I know that somewhere deep down inside of you, [N], that you remember why you "used" to believe. I know that you remember feelings and promptings that you had, I remember perfectly hearing you talk about them. I remember listening to you testify of the very things that you try to tear down with logic. I know that you know, however buried that may be by emotions, pain, or whatever else it could be that God does exist. The bottom line is something convinced you that there was a God and that everything you taught as a missionary was true. You had a testimony and still do. If you choose to bury those memories than that is fine. But just as you desire to point out your opinion so do I. I cannot deny the very real feelings that I have had in my life. The confirmations that there is a God and he loves us. No matter what information someone provides. I will always know. I love you [N], and I hope that you know that I always have your best interest in mind."

I have never heard a more condescending, presumptive, or closed-minded testimony. Not only does this person claim to "know" that there is a god and that my unbelieving friend likewise "knows" this, but this person states that "No matter what information someone provides," he will always know that god exists.

This is the definition of closed-minded. But in Mormon culture this phrasing is seen as admirably strong conviction. Too bad he doesn't support his claim that his super strong feelings are indicative of god. Too bad no one ever has.

Another Mormon friend of my friend wrote a rather wordy response, so I won't post it here. In his word-salad, he made an interesting point I have not heard in a while. He related the struggle for gay rights to the 1978 change which allowed black Mormons to attain the priesthood.

He said that a possible reason why blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood before 1978 is because members were not yet ready for such a drastic change. To him this is more plausible than the common criticism that the Church only made the change because of societal pressures, as they seem to have done on the issue of polygamy (polygamy was endorsed by the Church for decades; it was not until the Mormons sought to make Utah a state that they abolished the practice; also, the US government threatened to confiscate millions of dollars of Mormon assets should they continue polygamy, much like they currently threaten Fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy). 

The idea that Mormons were "not ready" to allow blacks to have the priesthood before 1978 does not speak favorably of Mormons at the time. The civil rights movement picked up a lot of steam in the 50s and 60s. What does it say about Mormons if they were behind the times by over a decade? Now that gay marriage is legal, how long will it take for the Church to catch up and once again claim moral superiority and exclusive access to divine revelation and prophecy?

Aron Ra was right; god moves in mysterious and delirious ways...

BONUS MATERIAL:

Coheed and Cambria performing Supreme Court Justice Scalia's "dissent" on gay marriage: